Abortion no more legitimate than segregation against blacks

To The Daily Sun,

"Explain in vivid detail what pro-choice means for the unborn if you dare.

I am challenging those who champion the right to choose abortion to narrate the full process, if you dare. I want them to describe in vivid detail the gruesome process step by step when they choose to destroy the life of an unborn child, not forgetting to fully describe the end result. Does this process called “choice,” or “women’s reproductive rights,” as championed by the Democrat Party, mean that a woman has the unrestricted right to kill the human life she has reproduced?

Emphatically yes! The liberal left claims that the unborn have no constitutional right to life right up to the last moment before birth. They openly seek legislation to eliminate all laws that place any restrictions on abortion. They have also pushed through legislation that allows an unwanted child born alive to be set aside and left to die.

Not all of the roughly half of our population old enough to be cognizant of the issue support “choice” in its full draconian form, but they support and vote for those in authority that do. The result is the unchecked proliferation of the full liberal-left Democrat platform.

Those who support abortion deny an unborn child’s humanity and personhood. The equal protection and due process tenets of the Fourteenth Amendment do not apply under Roe. Supreme Court. Justice Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion in Roe, related that the whole abortion issue collapses if personhood is established. But my liberal friends are not concerned about the lives of the 60-million unborn children that have been brutally exterminated because they have dehumanized the unborn. The original source of authority for this is adjudicated Supreme Court case law. From this source flows all the legislation and court decisions supporting abortion.

I am unimpressed by decisions of the courts on issues that I consider unjust and/or immoral. Consider the following shameful example:

Slavery was sanctioned by the Constitution and the Supreme Court. This fueled the Civil War (1861-65) that cost some 600,000 lives and caused untold suffering. But out of this came the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, the 14th Amendment, establishing equal protection and due process, and the 15th Amendment, establishing voting rights. These amendments, reinforced by the 1866 and 1875 Civil Rights Acts and the 1870 and 1871 Enforcement Acts, should have firmly established equality between the races. But the Supreme Court incredibly declared all these acts unconstitutional!

Starting with the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision and continuing until the 1954 Brown vs Board of Education ruling, an unending series of decisions by the court denied equal rights and equal protection under the law to people of color and fueled the proliferation of thousands of state Jim Crow segregation laws. Reading some of the shameful majority opinions in these cases is appalling.

One Justice, John Marshall Harlan, in his 34 years on the Court, wrote dissents to all such cases during his tenure. In the end, albeit long after his death, all the majority decisions against Blacks became dead letter and all Justice Harlan’s minority dissents became the law of the land.

It is worthy to note that the 1964 Civil Rights Act mirrored the basic tenets of the 1866 and 1875 Civil Rights Acts that the earlier Supreme Court declared unconstitutional!

When the Civil Rights marches were ramping up in the early 60s, African-Americans were protesting against segregation and asking for the same equal civil rights as whites. Please note that segregation and racism were the constitutional right of whites by Supreme Court case law edict and by the legislation it supported. But Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks and a host of others were not impressed by all this immoral adjudication and legislation.

With all this in mind, reading James Veverka’s letter, published in The Laconia Daily Sun on June 8, I am not impressed with his legal quotations championing abortion because the brutal genocide that has killed 60 million unborn children is immoral and not supportable. These adjudications are no more reasonable to me than the court decisions supporting segregation were to Reverend Martin Luther King or Rosa Parks, who refused to sit in the back of the bus. No amount of legislative or judicial folly regarding the genocide against the unborn will impress me any more than the constitutionally legal suppression of the natural rights of blacks impressed Dr. King or that brave little lady, Rosa Parks.

George Brunstad

Meredith